Supervised option showing "No" even though it is

[mwu1876]

I have a Supervised MacBook Air that does pick up the MDM profile during the setup but once enrolled and online, it shows Supervised No. Any ideas? My other test machine is fine. Shows up as Supervised.

[jtrant]

PI-000489 with no known workaround, other than re-enrolling (which doesn't usually help).

[rhowell]

Same issue. Devices auto enroll just fine but then report unsupervised in Jamf Pro

[poormatt]

Same issue here. Sometimes removing profile and reenrolling helps, but usually drops out of supervision again.

[dstranathan]

Seeing this bogus info on most of my Macs, too (All are DEP and enrolled in Jamf 10.26). But they seem to be 100% managable.

[poormatt]

Manageable yes. But the mdm commands like “Download and install updates” that require supervision are not available unless they report at supervised in inventory.

[dstranathan]

@poormatt I was under the impression that “Supervised” being displayed as “No” was a visual (bogus) anomaly with no practical impact on management of Macs...?

As far as I can tell, “Download and Install Updates” MDM command has never worked - at least for me (and definitely does not work on any version of Big Sur - regardless if the Jamf computer record shows “Supervised” or not). I recall being told that this particular MDM command was not fully implemented in Jamf (i.e.; the button in the “Management” tab doesn’t actually do anything)...?

[Fojo]

If Download and Install Updates has never worked, what is your method for deploying updates? I am experiencing the same issue. Thanks

[poormatt]

@dstranathan It's visual BS as far as it not being managed - when I look at Profiles on the device it says it's supervised. However, in the Jamf Pro console, it's treated as if it's only managed, with the Supervision only options not available.

As far as the button not working, this last go around I have updated both Silicon and Intel macs using it. My understanding is that of the several options that are available for the MDM command, only two are implemented. You actually see them in the pending/completed/failed commands when you run it. The caveats I found were that it took FOREVER. It downloads the update and then processes the download before it actually starts updating. The processing took over 30 minutes. The download depends on the internet speed of course. All that was done in the background, so there was no indication anything was happening - I kept an eye on Activity Monitor and was able to tell what was going on.

Depending on what type of user was logged in I got two behaviors. A standard user being logged in meant that once it was done processing, it rebooted right away with no notice. Needless to say that is kind of a bummer, be nice to be able to schedule it or at least get a heads up to save work. If an admin user was logged in, a notification came about in the upper right as notifications to that read something to the effect of "An update is requested to be performed by an Administrator". If you click on the notification, it takes you to Software Update in system prefs where you can tell it to update. If you cancel the notification, that's the end of the line. No update takes place and life goes on. All this is frustrating as the softwareupdate command requires human interaction with the Silicon macs so traditional workflows don't work properly right now.

[dstranathan]

@poormatt I have never ran the “Download and Install Updates” command on a Mac with a user logged into the console - which may certainly explain my experience. Good to know!

Related note: I have started testing Erik Gomez’s Nudge project to try and proactively “nudge” users to update macOS themselves. Needless to say that a lot of us are not happy campers about the lack of native software update and SUS options going forward (via MDM commands or otherwise). I have submitted my thoughts and feedback to Appleseed as well as my Apple Enterprise rep and engineer.

[CasperSally]

22% of our devices are showing in jamf as Supervised No, thought clients appear fine. I was hoping this issue wasn't going to folow us to Big Sur newly enrolled machines, but it is. Has anyone gotten any feedback from jamf on this ?

[jolinger]

187 devices showing as Supervised No and and the number keeps growing. Probably one of the "Features" they added recently

[GabeShack]

We are seeing this as well. Im trying some testing to see if we renew the MDM profile if this solves it...which seemed to have worked on one device so far, but I need to test further.

Gabe Shackney
Princeton Public Schools

[dstranathan]

@colorenz May be able to offer insight here. I think he has a Jamf Support ticket open and they are suggesting that performing a Recon may resolve this.

[CasperSally]

jamf told me it's a reporting error that is random and will be fixed in upcoming release. I'm just ignoring it at this point and hoping i don't have to send MDM command to a "no" machine before the fix is installed in a few months.

[bpstuder]

Case opened with support for weeks/months. Still no real fix except resetting the enrollment on my macs (which I won't do).
And even doing that makes the supervision disappear just after a simple recon, even on my DEP-enrolled computers.
Still happening on 10.29.0, and I didn't see the PI-008666 being fixed in 10.30.

[CasperSally]

"This is be resolved in 10.31.0 without requiring the device to be re-enrolled. " per jamf support

[Matt_Ellis]

I am on 10.31.1 and am seeing 138 machines out of about 1200 being unsupervised. Is anyone else seeing this?

[Clifton-Mason]

Same version and I just enrolled 2 users yesterday. Supervision says "No" Sigh

[Matt_Ellis]

I am a working with JAMF on a solution they told me to run recon twice on the affected machines as quickly as possible. it's kind of working.

[bpstuder]

We are running 10.32.1 and most of our machines, previously appearing as unsupervised are now supervised. A recon and patience seems to be the key to make it work. For those still unsupervised, there may be something to investigate deeper.

[j_meister]

We still have this problem with some machines. Any news on that topic?